Three Ways to Understand Government Classification of Jonestown Documents Revision of paper given at Religion, Secrecy and Security: Religious Freedom and Privacy in a Global Context An Interdisciplinary Conference at Ohio State University April 2004 Rebecca Moore In 2001 my husband, Fielding McGehee III, and I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice. McGehee and Moore v. U.S. Department of Justice seeks to compel the Justice Department to provide an index—as required by law—to three compact disks of materials the FBI had pulled together from documents collected in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978 and from files generated in the agency’s subsequent investigation into the assassination of U.S. Congressman Leo J. Ryan. Our interest in Jonestown is both personal and professional, and in that respect I am writing as a participant observer regarding the events of 18 November 1978. I am a participant to the extent that my two sisters and nephew died in Jonestown in the mass murders-suicides which occurred under the direction of Jim Jones and I wish to know how and why. My status as a relative makes me an insider of sorts, with access to survivors of the tragedy, and with stature with government agencies as an interested party. But I am an observer as well, given my training in religious studies and my desire to interpret the events to my academic peers within a scholarly framework. I also wish to write the history of Peoples Temple, the group begun by Jones in Indianapolis which migrated to California and then to Guyana, as accurately and completely as possible. This is a daunting task, given the public perception of Peoples Temple as either a group of fanatical cultists, or as victims of a vast, dark conspiracy. In short, I have a personal interest in getting the story straight, and in seeing history told as factually as possible. This type of investment is an advantage, which has seen my family through two and a half decades of research: from three FOIA lawsuits, including the current one; to a private investigation, trips to Guyana, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere; and to interviews with a variety of people involved with Peoples Temple. By being a participant I have been able to observe a great deal. In 1992 the FBI released nearly 39,000 documents to settle a FOIA lawsuit from the Church of Scientology. The release followed the agency’s review of earlier classification decisions relating to the papers. Many of these papers were generated by the FBI in its investigation of Leo Ryan’s death. When we filed a FOIA request in 1998 for a copy of all lists of people who died in Jonestown, the FBI said it had identified 48,738 pages in response, and would make those available upon receipt of $4863.80. After some negotiation with the agency—including the intervention of Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), then the ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which has jurisidction over implementation of the FOIA—the FBI agreed to make all of its documents relating to Jonestown, Peoples Temple, and Leo Ryan available on three CDs. The good news is that anyone making a FOA request for information about Peoples Temple 2 and Jonestown receives three CDS, that is, absolutely everything the FBI has released on the subject, for $30. The bad news is that there is no index to the files, which are stored graphically. One must search all three CDs, more than 48,000 pages, to find what one is looking for. In other words, the FBI is not truly responsive to requests for information about these subjects, and this is the reason we filed suit to compel such an index, as mandated by law. There are several additional problems with the current release and presentation of information about Peoples Temple. First, and most basic, is that many of the items the FBI scanned (which do not include any of the hundreds of photographs in the agency’s collection) are illegible, and hence unusable. Second, material that the FBI claims is exempt from release— primarily for reasons of national security, privacy, and law enforcement—must be appealed on a case-by-case basis. The possibility of reversing the classification decision is remote, as we have learned by having specific appeals denied. Substantial amounts of reclassification would necessitate recreating the CDs, an even less likely event. A third problem is that the FBI has shifted responsibility for releasing some items to the departments which originally generated the materials. For example, a teletype from the State Department sent to the Justice Department in the weeks following 18 November 1978, must now be reviewed by State before it can be released. This requires an administrative referral which, our experience has shown, is often ignored unless ordered by a court (which is the only way we were able to compel such a referral and to receive hundreds of pages of State Department documents via the FBI). It also raises the possibility, noted by the courts, of various agencies moving documents from one agency to another to avoid release. A final problem, and most significant, is that in recent years the FBI has claimed additional exemptions for some documents, and thus withheld information once available. We know this to be true because we have copies of FBI documents released in the 1980s which reveal more information than those currently released on the three CDs.1 The question this paper asks, and attempts to answer, is why. Why is the FBI maintaining, and even increasing, classification of documents pertaining to events that happened more than a quarter century ago? While there may have been compelling reasons to withhold information in 1979, by 1998—when we filed the FOIA request that led to the current lawsuit—a number of things had changed. The Cold War had ended with the fall of communism; many principals, including the president of Guyana, the U.S. ambassador to Guyana, and other key players, had died; all prosecutions involved in the Ryan assassination were concluded.2 Yet as recently as 2003, a FOIA official at the FBI told us off the record that some documents would never be released, not even after the mandatory declassification review period of thirty years. Release of classified material would answer a number of questions about the federal role in, and foreknowledge of, the Jonestown tragedy. The exempted materials raise questions about government spying on religious groups, and government manipulation by biased sources to pursue investigations and other activities. The documents might reveal how a group comprised of relatives and apostates created a cohort of “cultural opponents” comprised of government agencies and the news media (Hall), which ultimately convinced the people in Jonestown that revolutionary suicide was their only option (Chidester 2003). Release of the classified information, therefore, would shed light on the relationship between government and religion in one particular, and particularly fatal, instance. While there are a number of answers to the question “why is classification maintained,” they all relate to the question of initial classification and reclassification. This paper considers three possible answers to this question. First, information is classified by individuals who have an 3 interest in controlling information. Declassification would result in a loss of control—and of course, a decrease in power and authority—although these individuals would, and do, argue that the information would be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. Leo Strauss’ discussion of writing “between the lines” best describes this rationale for keeping government secrets. The real story of Peoples Temple is told in the materials that have been edited out, which are accessible only to the elect who are sufficiently trusted to handle the information. Second, information is classified by institutions, that is, structures which have naturalized popular opinion and prejudice. Mary Douglas’ How Institutions Think describes this process. Information can be released only if the institution alters its thinking, that is, if the “orthodoxy” concerning Peoples Temple changes. Though Douglas admits that institutions can and do make adjustments, her examples come from the world of business rather than government. In this model, there may be no secret subtext in the redactions, or even a compelling reason for classification. A blind, impersonal institution takes over and thinks for us. A final explanation for classification-mania comes from Pierre Bourdieu’s notions of habitus and field. The mindset within which government bureaucrats work—in this case the “universe” of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) Department of the Federal Bureau of Investigation—creates a disposition to classify, rather than release, information. It wouldn’t take a hurricane to dislodge this mindset, but it would require a modification in the rules of the game, that is, the way that bureaucrats view release of government information. We have actually seen the rules change over the course of several presidential administrations. Bourdieu’s theory therefore seems to present a middle ground between the extremes of individual (or even individualistic) classification and institutional classification After first providing a brief background to Peoples Temple and Jonestown, I will take up each explanation in turn. I hope to show that though the models suggested by Strauss and Douglas have explanatory power, Bourdieu’s analysis of the way people work within institutions offers a better account of why the FBI continues to classify, and even reclassify, documents pertaining to Jonestown. Furthermore, I will argue, Bourdieu’s scheme allows for the possibility of declassification in future. PEOPLES TEMPLE AND JONESTOWN The prevailing orthodoxy about Jonestown that was initially established has not changed much in the intervening twenty-eight years.